MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Revolution in Military Affairs – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on September 7, 2019

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/06/the-revolution-in-military-affairs/

Paul Craig Roberts

Clarity Press has just published a new book by Andrei Martyanov, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs  ( https://www.claritypress.com/product/the-real-revolution-in-military-affairs/ ).

Martyanov’s book is, in a way, two books.  One is about the revolution in military affairs that has left the United States behind.  The other is about the self-medicating and propagandistic version of reality that Americans mistake for reality.  Martyanov convinced me that the Pentagon’s war planners need to upgrade their understanding of war and how to conduct one, but I found more interesting the fake reality supported by controlled explanations from which Americans seem unable to escape that is described in the other part of his book.  It turns out that it is not only the insouciant general population but also the ruling elites themselves who are locked in The Matrix.

Slogans masquerade as ideas.  The media is devoid of integrity.  Fantasies such as Russiagate,  Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Russian invasions, Venezuela represented as “a threat to American national security,” Western Democracy in which voters decide nothing, self-regulating financial markets—really the fantasies are endless, and they leave America as the blind man of the world.

Martyanov concludes that “the unipolar world is over,” but the neoconservatives don’t know it or don’t accept the fact; that “American liberalism—a euphemism for imperialism” has run its course; that the race and gender splits fomented by Identity Politics and the economic split between the 1 and 99 percenters has left the United States as an unstable polity with unstable policies.

A country with instability on the American scale tends to unleash wars, and wars have been the sole activity of the US in the 21st century, leaving “a trail of destruction, suffering, refugee camps and death on an industrial scale.”  Consequently, the rest of the world is organizing to put a halt to Washington’s aggression and violent overthrow of countries.

With America unable to produce leadership, handicapped by inferior weapons systems, and left behind by the revolution in military affairs, the neoconservatives drowning in their own arrogant hubris could easily foment a conflict that will leave America in ruins.

Be seeing you

Why War Plans, Really? > National Defense University Press ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Meditations On Twitter’s Silencing Of Daniel McAdams – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on September 7, 2019

In reality, McAdams was suspended because there are people on Twitter who, either due to profession or obsession, make it their business to report any effective opponent of western imperialism…

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/09/05/meditations-on-twitters-silencing-of-daniel-mcadams/

Daniel McAdams, the Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, was banned from Twitter last week. Officially, it was because he used the word “retarded” to describe the odious establishment propagandist Sean Hannity after noting the hilarious fact that the Fox News host had been wearing a CIA lapel pin while “challenging the deep state”. Unofficially, it was because McAdams has been operating for years at the apex of one of the most effective antiwar movements in the United States.

An article from Liberty Conservative News about McAdams’ encounter with the business end of the Twitter censorship hammer reports that the outspoken foreign policy critic received a notification that his account “has been suspended and will not be restored because it was found to be violating Twitter’s Terms of Service, specifically the Twitter Rules against hateful conduct.”

“It is against our rules to promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease,” the notification reads. “Additionally, if we determine that the primary purpose of an account is to incite harm towards others on the basis of these categories, that account may be suspended without prior warning.”

Now, unless Sean Hannity does in fact have some literal mental handicap we don’t know about, it’s not accurate to say that he was attacked or threatened on that or any other basis; rather, he was merely insulted with a common pejorative that is not widely considered to be politically correct. It is also certainly not accurate to say that the primary purpose of McAdams’ now-defunct Twitter account was to incite harm toward others based on the aforementioned categories. Indeed, the article notes, the word “retarded” is used constantly on Twitter by users all around the world who never suffer any consequences for it; a quick Twitter search easily confirms that the word is used as an insult multiple times per minute. The reasons given for McAdams’ suspension can therefore be regarded as bogus.

In reality, McAdams was suspended because there are people on Twitter who, either due to profession or obsession, make it their business to report any effective opponent of western imperialism at every opportunity to Twitter admins, many of whom apparently have a clear pro-establishment bias of their own. It’s happened to me on more than one occasion, and we may be sure that it happened to Daniel McAdams last week as well.

Which is annoying. It’s annoying to know that at some point I’ll probably slip up and say something imperfectly in an increasingly restrictive speech environment which gets me permanently banned from that platform. I like Twitter. I’m good at it. I’ve recently concluded that it’s pretty much useless for dialogue, but it is a great way for one person to get unauthorized ideas seen millions of times per month by people who might not feel like reading an entire article. I’ll be very put off when the banhammer finds my pretty face.

But you know what’s even more annoying? What’s even more annoying is that we live in a society where insulting a murderous war propagandist like Sean Hannity gets you silenced and marginalized, but being a murderous war propagandist like Sean Hannity does not. Being a murderous war propagandist like Sean Hannity gets you rewarded with fame and fortune at every turn.

I’d like us to reverse this, please.

I’d like to live in a society where promoting mass military slaughter is the thing that gets someone de-platformed and shunned, not using a rude word to insult someone who promotes mass military slaughter.

A society where a US president killing mountains of people around the world attracts more media attention than his rude tweets.

A society where being a warmonger is just as taboo and reviled as being a serial killer or a child rapist.

A society where people get their news from reporters who tell the truth about what’s happening, not from veterans of depraved intelligence agencies whose entire professions have been devoted to deceit and disinformation.

A society so sensitive to the horrors of war and the realities of its power dynamics that black bloc protesters would put more energy into disrupting appearances by people like Henry Kissinger and John Bolton than people like Milo Yiannopoulos.

A society so emotionally awake and empathetic in the way it operates that sociopathy and psychopathy become more of a disabling handicap than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

A society so healthy that we no longer spend our creative energy figuring out ways to kill and exploit and manipulate each other and instead spend it figuring out ways to collaborate with each other and with our ecosystem for the benefit of everyone.

A natural society, the kind we imagined as small children that we would be inheriting, instead of this insane stew of oligarchic psyops and cultural mind viruses which rewards sociopathy and elevates social cannibals.

 

That society is already here in embryonic form, only hidden beneath a fog of confusion about what we are and where the stable ground of sanity is. Some of that fog was created accidentally, as the result of a species suddenly evolving extra brain matter at an unprecedented speed and stumbling out of the trees into a world of WiFi and processed meats. Most of the fog has been created deliberately, with countless generations of powerful humans inflicting narratives upon their subjects which further advantage the powerful and further disadvantage the powerless.

But sanity is right there, patiently waiting underneath the insanity. Waiting for us to open our eyelids and part the fog and remember our natural state. It’s right here, closer to us than our own breath, so simple and obvious that we can spend our whole lives overlooking it.

It’s that comfy homely chair where you can let your bum nestle into the folds of the earth, the vantage point from which you truly don’t mind what happens, you’re just curious as to what you’ll do next.

It’s that quiet still place from where inspiration bubbles up, just below the babble of the unreliable narrator of our patterned thinking mind.

It’s that place between sleep and at rest, right before the clamor of thoughts bustle in.

It’s where ideas spring from in the middle of the night or in the middle of a shower, from that relaxed, happy state that peeks through when you forget yourself for a moment.

It’s right here, just below the surface of the made-up matrix of mind gunk.

This is the place from which our sane society will be birthed into the world.

Sink in and live from here whenever you remember to.

Let it be birthed through you.

________________________

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Fool’s War Over Trade – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 7, 2019

This fool’s war of big egos will inevitably end in a face-saving compromise between Washington and Beijing. Get on with it.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/eric-margolis/fools-war-over-trade/

By

According to the great military thinker, Maj. Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, ‘the object of war is not victory. It is to achieve political goals.’…

Trump’s wars are economic. They deploy the huge economic and financial might of the United States to steamroll other nations that fail to comply with orders from Washington. Washington’s motto is ‘obey me or else!’ Economic wars are not bloodless. Imperial Germany and the Central Powers were starved into surrender in 1918 by a crushing British naval blockade.

Trade sanctions are not making America great, as Trump claims. They are making America detested around the globe as a crude bully. Trump’s efforts to undermine the European Union and intimidate Canada add to this ugly, brutal image…

Trump and his advisors are right about China’s often questionable trade practices. I did 15 years of business in China and saw a kaleidoscope of chicanery, double-dealing, and corruption. A favorite Chinese trick was to leave imports baking in the sun on the docks, or long delaying them by ‘losing’ paperwork.

I saw every kind of craziness in the Wild East Chinese market. But remember that it’s a ‘new’ market in which western-style capitalism is only one generation old. Besides, China learned many of its fishy trade practices from France, that mother of mercantilism.

China indeed steals technical and military information on a mass scale. But so does the US, whose spy agencies suck up information across the world. America’s claims to be a victim are pretty rich…

In China’s view, the US is repeating what Great Britain did in the 19th century by declaring war to force opium grown in British-ruled Burma onto China’s increasingly addicted people.  Today the trade crop is soya beans and wretched pigs.

Trump’s ultimate objective, as China clearly knows, is to whip up a world crisis over trade, then dramatically end it – of course, before next year’s elections.  Trump has become a master dictator of US financial markets, rising or lowering them by surprise tweets…

It staggers the imagination to believe that Trump and his minions actually believe that they can intimidate China into bending the knee. China withstood mass devastation and at least 14 million deaths in World War II in order to fight off Japanese domination. Does the White House really think Beijing will cave in over soya beans and semi-conductors in a daft war directed by a former beauty contest and casino operator?…

Trade wars rarely produce any benefits for either side. They are the equivalent of sending tens of thousands of soldiers to be mowed down by machine guns on the blood-soaked Somme battlefield in WWI. Glory for the stupid generals; death and misery for the common soldiers

This fool’s war of big egos will inevitably end in a face-saving compromise between Washington and Beijing. Get on with it.

Be seeing you

madeleine-albright

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Government Won’t Save Us From “Woke” Corporations | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 7, 2019

Many of those who avail themselves of Zuckerberg’s invention hold the same political and cultural beliefs… Perhaps most users of these internet conveniences welcome P.C. intolerance.

https://mises.org/wire/government-wont-save-us-woke-corporations

From the shoes you wear to the ice cream you eat, politics has found a way to sneak into some of the most mundane aspects of our lives. The new trend of “Woke Capital,” where firms are actively promoting social justice causes, has had many free-marketers scratching their heads at how corporate America has hopped on board this wave of Progressivism.

Take for example the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s. Ben & Jerry’s has made it a point to virtue signal about the latest leftist hobby horses. It made sure to showcase its progressive credentials through its launch of a resistance-themed ice cream flavor and even went as far as to endorse the Green New Deal.

Woke Capital was also on full display when Nike decided to pull its Betsy Ross flag line of shoes thanks to pressure from former NFL player Colin Kaepernick. Now an activist, Kaepernick viewed the Betsy Ross flag as an image of racism due to its creation during the American Revolution when slavery was still present.

A similar trend of political activism gone corporate has popped up when dealing with wedge issues such as gun rights. Companies such as Salesforce recently stopped doing business with organizations that sell semi-automatic rifles and firearms accessories. This decision is part of a larger wave off corporate gun control taking place since the 2018 Parkland shooting.

Corporations are Following in the State’s Footsteps

The threat of state action has hamstrung many forms of private associations and has seeped into the culture as well. The “therapeutic managerial state” we see today functions as a public-private partnership where political correctness culture is pushed as a means of re-socializing the public. Corporate actors are now well aware of this and work to one-up their PC overlords in the entrenched DC bureaucracy by trying to be “woke” in the boardroom.

Big Tech is a great example. Last year’s social media purges of political personalities such as Alex Jones demonstrated this new form of corporate policing. However, the blunt force of the state still lurked in the background as the late Justin Raimondo previously noted during the Jones deplatforming saga:

All this wasn’t good enough for Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), who demanded to know if the plan was to only take down “one web site.” No doubt he has a whole list of sites he’d like to take down. Even more ominously, it was revealed that a direct threat had been made to these companies by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia), who sent out a memo listing all the ways the government could crack down on Big Data if they refuse to go along with cleansing the internet of “divisive” material.

Even though no direct legislative action came out of Senator Murphy’s threats, many companies are well aware of the state’s power to modify private behavior. The administrative state’s willingness to put the clamps on allegedly discriminatory activities is well-documented. So, these companies have every incentive to be on their best behavior, and in some cases go the extra mile by being “woke” to avoid bureaucratic persecution.

Changing Corporate Culture?

It is intriguing that there hasn’t been much pushback against corporate virtue signaling from consumers. This indicates some degree of cultural tolerance from a large portion of the population. Just think about it, when’s the last time a mass conservative boycott of a company enacting “woke” policies led to its bankruptcy?

Bill Anderson’s point about how “the fundamentals of private property, prices, and profits and losses” cannot be ignored in any business operation is valid, but it overlooks one trend that has taken place during the last few decades — how much the American consumer base has been re-socialized by the managerial state and its many indoctrination mechanisms.

Paul Gottfried makes an interesting observation about both corporate titans and consumers in the twenty-first century when it relates to deplatforming:

Many of those who avail themselves of Zuckerberg’s invention hold the same political and cultural beliefs. I’m not even sure that the decisions made by Facebook and Google here and in Western Europe to kick political conservatives off their sites is a bad business practice. Perhaps most users of these internet conveniences welcome P.C. intolerance.

Gottfried also explains how entrepreneurs during the Gilded Age like Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie generally held more traditional views and “were devout Protestants, and they lived in societies in which both rich and poor were expected to conform to certain bourgeois proprieties that hardly exist anymore.” In sum, there is not enough collective opposition to match the “woke” Corporate America of the twenty-first century nor the activist groups constantly pressing for more diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace.

What we see now is both corporate leadership that is either culturally receptive to social justice culture and a more apathetic consumer base that does not care about the politics of these companies enough to actually revolt against them via the pocketbook.

Some rightwing politicians have suggested additional government regulation in retaliation against these firms. But for those more inclined toward laissez-faire, consumer action and robust civil society are more important than ever. Instead of exclusively focusing on elections, free-marketers should shift their energy toward business and cultural endeavors. In these areas, there are more level playing fields. The silver lining of this new Woke Capital trend is that these kinds of battles will incentivize free-market advocates to put more skin in the game and actually build viable alternatives to current corporate structures.

For example, Amazon shareholders nixed several employee-led proposals which included a plan to tackle climate change. Similarly, Google shareholders rejected a plan to link executive compensation to diversity goals. Through shareholder pressure, those of free-market inclinations can make their voices heard. More boardroom, less ballot box.

The last thing we should do in these situations is to bring the government in to “normalize” business conduct. If anything, the last century has demonstrated that government stepping into private affairs has thrown everything out of whack. As American society becomes more polarized and the government maintains its automated growth, alternative strategies that promote political decentralization are crucial.

 

Be seeing you

Should the New York Times sack Sarah Jeong over her racist ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate Change

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019

The science is settled!

This makes the eugenics revival look good.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/06/swedish-scientist-proposes-cannibalism-fight-climate-change/

by Chris Tomlinson

Swedish behavioural scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating other people after they die could be a means of combatting climate change.

The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding “food of the future”.

Söderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled “Gastro Summit — about the future of food” where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.

According to his research, the main problem with the idea is the widespread taboo of eating human flesh and said that conservative attitudes could make it hard to convince Swedes at large to take up the practice of cannibalism.

Regardless of the likely immense resistance to the idea of eating people, Söderlund said it was important to examine different options in the name of sustainability.

Söderlund is not alone in his call to reject the taboo of cannibalism. Last year, noted atheist and evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins advocated for lab-grown meat and suggested it may be used to “overcome our taboo against cannibalism”.

Psychologists Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie of Lancaster University also questioned the taboo on cannibalism in an article for Newsweek last month but ultimately did not endorse breaking it…

Be seeing you

Dieting cannibals: At last, a scientist has calculated calories for human body parts • The Register

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Red Flag Laws Spur Debate Over Due Process

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019

You know our situation is bad when you have PEW and the ACLU fretting over your gun related rights.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/09/04/red-flag-laws-spur-debate-over-due-process

In the year since Florida enacted its red flag law, Kendra Parris has defended nearly 20 clients against risk protection orders that could remove their firearms.

The Orlando-based lawyer has long represented people who might be subject to the state’s involuntary mental health treatment provision. But when this new law, meant to protect against people who might be a harm to themselves or others, passed in the aftermath of the February 2018 Parkland mass shooting, she saw yet another opportunity for the state to potentially deprive certain people of their civil liberties.

“It’s almost like a shiny new toy for law enforcement,” Parris said, “filing them left and right.”

Since the law’s adoption, Florida courts have approved around 2,500 risk protection orders, according to an August count by NPR.

Since Parkland, at least six states and the District of Columbia have passed red flag laws, which allow law enforcement agencies that have gotten a court order to remove guns from people considered a harm to themselves or others. In the wake of high-profile shootings this summer in Ohio and Texas, including one that killed eight people in Midland-Odessa this past weekend, more state lawmakers are considering such laws, as are some members of Congress.

Many law enforcement officials firmly believe the laws save lives, and lawmakers say they can craft legislation that won’t infringe on civil liberties.

But for two decades, since the first such law was enacted in Connecticut, civil and gun rights advocates have protested that the seizures violate the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee — meaning residents have a right to fully argue their case in court.

“Rather than find clear and convincing evidence, [courts are] basically saying, ‘Better safe than sorry,’” Parris said.

Most red flag laws are vague on what constitutes a “significant danger,” which gives courts broad discretion to seize firearms, Parris said. And in some states, respondents are not guaranteed representation in court, since these are civil and not criminal matters.

Many defense lawyers say respondents fare much better with legal representation. Of Parris’ seven cases that have gone to a hearing, she has won five — which she said is a “vastly higher” success record than when someone represents themselves.

Due Process Concerns

Seventeen states and D.C. have laws on the books that allow law enforcement or family members to petition courts to remove weapons from people who may be dangerous and prevent them from buying other weapons for up to a year. In many of these states, bipartisan groups of lawmakers led the drive to pass the legislation.

States define “red flags” differently, but they largely follow the same process for taking away somebody’s guns.

If someone is showing signs of erratic behavior or expressed some intent to hurt themselves or others, they might be subject to an extreme risk protection order. In most states with red flag laws, family or community members can petition a court for those orders. But in Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont, law enforcement officials are the only ones who can petition to remove firearms.

If there is an immediate risk of harm, a court can issue a temporary ex parte order to seize guns from people for up to 14 days in most states. Other states range from two days to 45 days. At those hearings, a judge can issue the order by listening to evidence from the petitioner.

In many cases, the subject of a petition can’t present a defense until the final hearing. But that’s where the process gets legally dubious to some critics.

Dave Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute, a Denver-based libertarian think tank, said states have taken the same approach President Donald Trump spoke in favor of in March 2018: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

When it comes to seizing guns through a temporary order, the standards that a judge uses should be high, Kopel said. Vermont, he believes, has a fair system, which requires “specific facts” that show “an imminent and extreme risk.”

The situation becomes even more precarious when loved ones can petition for the removal of firearms, he said. Spurned former partners or family members seeking revenge might “weaponize” this tool, he said. Because of that, he argues, there should be a penalty for maliciously false accusations, which several states have adopted…

In Rhode Island, the American Civil Liberties Union originally came out against the state’s 2018 measure until the legislature tightened the standard for granting a petition, created penalties for providing false evidence of a threat, allowed only law enforcement to file petitions, required specific evidence and granted the right to legal counsel in hearings…

Be seeing you

29 best images about Books Worth Reading on Pinterest ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The FBI’s terrorism watch list violates the Constitution, federal judge says

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019

“Innocent people should be beyond the reach of the watchlist system,” Gadeir Abbas, a CAIR attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We think that’s what the Constitution requires.”

It is a sad state of affairs when the Jihadist version of AIPAC, CAIR, succeeds in defending US rights where congress fails.

https://outline.com/aBzwXa

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that an FBI watch list of more than 1 million “known or suspected terrorists” violates the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens in the database.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia in favor of 23 Muslim Americans who sued over their inclusion in the Terrorist Screening Database found that the watch list infringes on their constitutional right to due process. Trenga noted that the list restricts their ability to fly and engage in everyday activities and backed the plaintiffs’ concerns that they were flagged secretly and without a clear methodology.

“There is no evidence, or contention, that any of these plaintiffs satisfy the definition of a ‘known terrorist,’ ” wrote Trenga, adding that even harmless conduct could result in someone being labeled as a “suspected terrorist” on the watch list.

“An individual’s placement into the [watch list] does not require any evidence that the person engaged in criminal activity, committed a crime, or will commit a crime in the future,” the judge wrote, “and individuals who have been acquitted of a terrorism-related crime may still be listed.”

The ruling could reshape the government’s process for a watch list that has long been criticized for inaccuracy and described by opponents as “a Muslim registry created in the wake of the widespread Islamophobia of the early 2000s.” Trenga ordered both the plaintiffs and defendants to submit arguments about how to fix the constitutional problems with the database, which encompasses nearly 1.2 million people, including about 4,600 U.S. citizens or residents, as of June 2017.

Trenga’s 32-page opinion was hailed as a significant win by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the civil liberties organization that filed the lawsuit in 2016…

Be seeing you

CAIR-HAMAS!! | Kristi Ann's Haven

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Future of the Spectacle … or How the West Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Reality Police, by C.J. Hopkins – The Unz Review

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019

Every waking hour of their lives will be spent consuming the all-consuming, smiley, happy, global capitalist Spectacle, every empty moment of which will be monitored and pre-approved by DARPA.

I don’t know, call me crazy, or a Person of Malicious Intent, but I think I’d prefer that boot in the face.

http://www.unz.com/chopkins/the-future-of-the-spectacle-or-how-the-west-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-reality-police/

If you want a vision of the future, don’t imagine “a boot stamping on a human face — for ever,” as Orwell suggested in 1984. Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized into the screen of some kind of nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image has been algorithmically approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) and its “innovation ecosystem” of “academic, corporate, and governmental partners.”

The screen of this futuristic device will offer a virtually unlimited range of “non-divisive” and “hate-free” content, none of which will falsify or distort the “truth,” or in any way deviate from “reality.” Western consumers will finally be free to enjoy an assortment of news, opinion, entertainment, and educational content (like this Guardian podcast about a man who gave birth, or MSNBC’s latest bombshell about Donald Trump’s secret Russian oligarch backers) without having their enjoyment totally ruined by discord-sowing alternative journalists like Aaron Maté or satirists like myself.

“Fake news” will not appear on this screen. All the news will be “authentic.” DARPA and its partners will see to that. You won’t have to worry about being “influenced” by Russians, Nazis, conspiracy theorists, socialists, populists, extremists, or whomever. Such Persons of Malicious Intent will still be able to post their content (because of “freedom of speech” and all that stuff), but they will do so down in the sewers of the Internet where normal consumers won’t have to see it. Anyone who ventures down there looking for it (i.e., such “divisive” and “polarizing” content) will be immediately placed on an official DARPA watchlist for “potential extremists,” or “potential white supremacists,” or “potential Russians.”

Once that happens, their lives will be over (i.e., the lives of the potentially extremist fools who have logged onto whatever dark web platform will still be posting essays like this, not the lives of the Persons of Malicious Intent, who never had any lives to begin with, and who by that time will probably be operating out of some heavily armed, off-the-grid compound in Idaho). Their schools, employers, and landlords will be notified. Their photos and addresses will be published online. Anyone who ever said two words to them (or, God help them, appears in a photograph with them) will have 24 hours to publicly denounce them, or be placed on DARPA’s watchlist themselves...

If you think this vision is science fiction, or dystopian satire, think again. Or read this recent article in Bloomberg, “U.S. Unleashes Military to Fight Fake News, Disinformation.” Here the lede to get you started …

“Fake news and social media posts are such a threat to U.S. security that the Defense Department is launching a project to repel ‘large-scale, automated disinformation attacks’ … the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) wants custom software that can unearth fakes hidden among more than 500,000 stories, photos, video and audio clips. If successful, the system after four years of trials may expand to detect malicious intent and prevent viral fake news from polarizing society …”

What could be more reassuring than the knowledge that DARPA and its corporate partners will be scanning the entire Internet for content created with “malicious intent,” or which has the potential to “polarize” society, and making sure we never see that stuff? If they can’t do it, I don’t know who can. They developed the Internet, after all. I’m not exactly sure how they did it, but Yasha Levine wrote a book about it, which I think we’re still technically allowed to read.

Anyway, according to the Bloomberg article, DARPA and its corporate partners won’t have the system up and running in time for the 2020 elections, so the Putin-Nazis will probably win again. Which means we are looking at four more years of relentless Russia and fascism hysteria, and fake news and divisive content hysteria, and anti-Semitism and racism hysteria, and … well, basically, general apocalyptic panic over anything and everything you can possibly think of…

I don’t know, call me crazy, or a Person of Malicious Intent, but I think I’d prefer that boot in the face.

Be seeing you

T-shirt If you want a picture of the future, imagine a ...

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Noam Chomsky Calls Out Israel For Interfering In US Elections & Says Russian Interference Is “A Joke” – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019

Modern day politics is extremely corrupt, and here at CE we’ve been presenting evidence for years that many of our political ‘leaders’ are actively engaged and involved in some very unethical and immoral behaviour

Israeli intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies – what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/09/05/news-noam-chomsky-calls-out-israel-for-interfering-in-us-elections-says-russian-interference-is-a-joke/

  • The Facts:Noam Chomsky calls out Israel for interfering in the US elections. He also confirms the obvious, that the Russian Interference narrative is a joke.
  • Reflect On:Why does the media only focus on certain figures to create a narrative? Who is guiding the media to create these narratives?

It’s important to understand why Donald Trump, since he decided to run for president, gets demonized by mainstream media. The answer is simple, it’s because he is a disrupter. Many minds will have a hard time seeing this, and this is the power that mainstream media has had over the minds of the masses for years. It’s not hard for them to program a perception about an event or a person into the mind of the average human being. They have a very powerful ability to do so, and these programs stem from mainstream media’s relationships with intelligence agencies like the CIA. It’s simply a tool used to brainwash the masses.

The coordinated efforts among major news outlets including CNN, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, and USA Today are no different from the concerted media attacks against Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, which resulted earlier in 2016 in her impeachment and removal from power. In the case of Rousseff, we see what has been alternately described as a soft coup or a Wall Street coup, along the lines of the “color revolutions” that occurred a few years earlier (which are now largely understood as CIA-NGO orchestrated). In both cases, pretexts were created and hammered home by an insistent media that whipped up public opinion. In Brazil, it worked. It seemed like it would work in the US.

As for Donald Trump, his presidency in many ways falls against the two key pillars of the American ruling elite’s ideology: neoliberalism and neoconservatism. And this is why we constantly see him being demonized, and efforts to impeach him are abundant. It’s also why the ‘Russian collusion’ narrative existed, something that many should have been able to recognize as being completely fake.

There has clearly been an ongoing deep state attack on Trump. Whether or not you hate Trump, far beyond the point, what is being exposed here is far bigger than that.

Welcome to America, where fake news is pushed as real, and real news is heavily censored and ridiculed.

Not long ago, Noam Chomsky offered his thoughts and made some very good points on this. Chomsky is known as a deep critical thinker, a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist, among other things. I’m a longtime fan, and much of the work he’s put out deeply resonates with me, but at the same time, much of it does not.

 

He is usually spot on for the most part, in my opinion,  when it comes to his analysis of modern day politics. He recently shared his thoughts on this entire Russian collusion debacle.

He explained in an interview with Democracy Now that the media’s focus on Russian collusion with regards to the 2016 US election was a “joke.”

He did not confirm or deny his belief on whether or not it even happened, but rather explained:

First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support.

Israeli intervention in US elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies – what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015.

It’s a great point. Three-time presidential candidate and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Ron Paul, has been outspoken about the US meddling in the elections of other countries. He noted that in an ideal world, the US wouldn’t be concerned about other countries trying to interfere with their elections, and that the reason it’s not happening is because the US government is steeped in hypocrisy, doing the exact same thing they are accusing Russia of doing.

“The American people should be worried about the influence of our CIA in other people’s elections, I mean probably hundreds. It’s constant,” he said, even mentioning “domestic assassinations” the CIA has apparently been a part of.

Paul stirred the pot further by revealing that a “shadow government,” in the words of RT, has teamed up with major media in order to push an anti-Russian narrative on the public to instil fear and hatred and ultimately rile up more arguments between the opposing Republican and Democratic parties.

There Are More Important Issues

The point of presenting the interview with Chomsky and the points he makes is that there are more pressing issues. The supposed Russian hacking in the US election is not really important, it’s simply being used for political purposes and assassinations.

Modern day politics is extremely corrupt, and here at CE we’ve been presenting evidence for years that many of our political ‘leaders’ are actively engaged and involved in some very unethical and immoral behaviour. That shouldn’t really come as a surprise if you take a look at what is happening to our planet–it’s truly the result of psychopathic leaders that we, the people, allow to control all our resources and make decisions for us.

Furthermore, the interview also sheds light on interference in our electoral process that never gets any media attention. So, ask yourself, why?

Who Is Really In Charge? Do We Really Live In A Democracy?

One of many popular quotes we use here at Collective Evolution to shed light onto the world of modern day politics comes from New York City mayor, John F. Hylan, who once said, “like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” This “little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties … [and] control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country.“

This begs the question, do we really live under a system of democratic vote? Do the people truly have a voice? It seems that corporations and other higher powers have complete control over political policy, and the will of the people is never really considered. For the most part, especially in the United States, elections come down to two people who don’t really have the best interests of the people or humanity at heart. Despite this fact, we keep voting, something that gives us the illusion that we are living in a democracy. Voting does absolutely nothing for change, and yet many Americans still give it grave importance. It seems that both democrats and republicans have simply been representing two different wings from the same bird for a long time.

This is the way the system works, it’s a rotten system, and I see elections as so much of a charade. So much deceit goes on… whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat president, the people who want to keep the status quo seem to have their finger in the pot and can control things. They just get so nervous so, if they have an independent thinker out there, whether it’s Sanders, or Trump, or Ron Paul, they’re going to be very desperate to try to change things… More people are discovering that the system is all rigged, and that voting is just pacification for the voters and it really doesn’t count.”  – Dr Ron Paul

There are dozens upon dozens of politicians who have referenced the ‘Deep State,’ not just Donald Trump. Despite the fact that Trump has often been labelled as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by mainstream media, he joins a long list of politicians who have expressed the same things.

Another great example comes from Theodore Roosevelt,

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great staffs, both of the old parties have ganged aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. (source)

The point is, politics is not what we think it is. Not all that is presented to us is as it seems, and this is far from a conspiracy theory. We cannot keep going through the same process every four years believing that a difference will be made via the modern day political system.

Something needs to change because the human race has so much potential and we are squandering it.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, politics has clearly been exposed as a game where one group tried to slander another for their own purposes. Rarely are decisions made with the intention of benefiting the people or the planet.  Politics is not about the will of the people, but rather a means to bamboozle the population into thinking a certain way while benefiting a small group of the financial elite. It’s become completely useless, and participation in it should be discouraged.

Be seeing you

image020.jpg

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who Won and Who Lost WWII? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019

Six years of war only to give away the prize. That is the thing about war. Even if you win, you lose.

I didn’t learn that in government school either.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/patrick-j-buchanan/who-won-and-who-lost-world-war-ii/

By

Sunday, the 80th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland, Vice President Mike Pence spoke in Warsaw’s Pilsudski Square of “five decades of untold suffering and death that followed” the invasion. Five decades!

What Pence was saying was that, for Poland, World War II did not end in victory but defeat and occupation by an evil empire ruled by one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century, Josef Stalin.

The “Liberation of Europe,” the 75th anniversary of which we celebrated at Omaha Beach on June 6, was a liberation that extended only to the Elbe River in the heart of Germany.

Beyond the Elbe, the Nazis were annihilated, but victory belonged to an equally evil ideology, for the “liberators” of Auschwitz had for decades run an archipelago of concentration camps as large as Himmler’s.

So, who really won, and who lost, the war?

Winston Churchill wanted to fight for Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938, and Britain went to war for Poland in 1939. Yet if both nations ended up under Bolshevik rule for half a century, did Britain win their freedom? And if this was the predictable result of a war in a part of Europe where Nazis confronted Bolsheviks, why did Britain even go to war?

Why did Britain declare war for a cause and country it could not defend? Why did Britain turn a German-Polish war into a world war that would surely bankrupt her and bring down her empire, while she could not achieve her declared war goal — a liberated and independent Poland?

What vital British interest was imperiled by Hitler’s retrieval of a port city, Danzig, that had been severed from Germany against the will of its 300,000 people and handed to Poland at Versailles in 1919?

Danzigers never wanted to leave Germany, and 90% wanted to return. Even the British Cabinet thought Germany had a case and Danzig should be returned.

Why then did Britain declare war?

Because Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had insanely given the Poles a blank check, a war guarantee on March 31, 1939: If Germany uses force to retrieve Danzig, and you resist, we will fight at your side.

Britain’s war guarantee guaranteed the war.

Given the cause for which their country went to war, British actions during the war seem inexplicable…

Rather than attack Hitler after he invaded Poland, Britain and France remained behind the Maginot Line and waited until Hitler’s armies stormed west on May 10, 1940, the day Churchill took power.

In three weeks, the British army had been defeated and thrown off the continent. In six weeks, France had surrendered.

After Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain in 1940, Britain refused all of Hitler’s offers to end the war, holding on till June 1941, when Hitler turned on his partner Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union.

Churchill is the “man of the century” for persuading Britain to stand alone against Nazi Germany in 1940, Britain’s “finest hour.”

But at war’s end, what was the balance sheet of Churchill?

The Poland for which Britain had gone to war was lost to Stalinism and would remain so for the entire Cold War. Churchill would be forced to accede to Stalin’s annexation of half of Poland and its incorporation into the Soviet Bloc. To appease Stalin, Churchill declared war on Finland.

Britain would end the war bombed, bled and bankrupt, with her empire in Asia, India, the Mideast and Africa disintegrating. In two decades it would all be gone.

France would end the war after living under Nazi occupation and Vichy rule for five years, lose her African and Asian empire and then sustain defeats and humiliation in Indochina in 1954 and Algeria in 1962.

Who really won the war?

Certainly, the Soviets who, after losses in the millions from the Nazi invasion, ended up occupying Berlin, having annexed the Baltic states and turned Eastern Europe into a Soviet base camp, though Stalin is said to have remarked of a 19th-century czar, “Yes, but Alexander I made it to Paris!”

The Americans, who stayed out longest, ended the war with the least losses of any great power. Yet, America is a part of the West, and the West was the loser of the world wars of the last century.

Indeed, the two wars between 1914 and 1945 may be seen as the Great Civil War of the West, the Thirty Years War of Western Civilization that culminated in the loss of all the Western empires and the ultimate conquest of the West by the liberated peoples of their former colonies.

Be seeing you

World War II Allies—British Prime Minister Winston ...

Disgust-Def: Giving away the farm to “Uncle Joe”.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »